Given situation: Person TC purchased a motorboat from Company B (a State IL in Country U based corporation). The motorboat is actually manufactured by Company S (a State IN company that has a principal business in City D. Company S doesn’t have an agent and no office in state IL. But person TC has seen Company S’s boats on display of Company B sporting goods store. It is the place where he actually purchased the boat. A written warranty was granted to Person CL in State I, gave by Company S. Even though it was issued with a warrant, in this case she failed to enter an appearance. To determine: Judgement for Person TC.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 7CP

Summary Introduction

Given situation:

Person TC purchased a motorboat from Company B (a State IL in Country U based corporation). The motorboat is actually manufactured by Company S (a State IN company that has a principal business in City D.

Company S doesn’t have an agent and no office in state IL. But person TC has seen Company S’s boats on display of Company B sporting goods store. It is the place where he actually purchased the boat. A written warranty was granted to Person CL in State I, gave by Company S. Even though it was issued with a warrant, in this case she failed to enter an appearance.

To determine: Judgement for Person TC.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. was a tenant in a building that was protected against fire by a sprinkler and alarm system maintained by the ADT security company. Because of the latter's fault, the controls on the system were defective and allowed the discharge of water into the building, which damaged Melodee's property. When Melodee sued ADT, its defense was that its service contract limited its liability to 10% of the annual service charge made to the customer. Was this limitation valid? [Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. v. American District Telegraph Co., 218 N.E.2d 661 (N.Y.)]

Helvey brought suit against the Wabash County REMC (REMC) for breach of implied and express warranties. He alleged that REMC furnished electricity in excess of 135 volts to Helvey’s home, damaging his 110-volt household appliances. This incident occurred more than four years before Helvey brought this suit. In defense, REMC pleads that the Uniform Commercial Code’s (UCC’s) Article 2 statute of limitations of four years has passed, thereby barring Helvey’s suit. Helvey argues that providing electrical energy is not a transaction in goods under the UCC but rather a furnishing of services that would make applicable the general contract six-year statute of limitations. Is the contract governed by the UCC? Why or why not?

Moore ran a bakery in Santa Rosa, New Mexico. His business was wholly intrastate. Meads Fine Bread Co., his competitor, engaged in an interstate business. Meads cut the price of bread in half in Santa Rosa but made no price cut in any other place in New Mexico or in any other state. This price-cutting drove Moore out of business. Moore then sued Meads for damages for violating the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts. Meads claimed that the price-cutting was purely intrastate and, therefore, did not constitute a violation of federal statutes. Was Meads correct? Why or why not?